TV remotes may be the gateway to a pervasive wireless mesh

WiFi and cellular devices may be pushing for ever higher bandwidth, but the …

The progress that wireless devices have made in the consumer space is nothing short of breathtaking. In the developed world, nearly everyone has a cellphone, and it's difficult to go anywhere in an urban center and not have a half-dozen WiFi networks within signal range. A lot of the focus in this space has been on providing more bandwidth to devices like smart phones and routers, but at least some companies are betting that the next frontier in wireless is in cheap, low-power devices. Individually, they'll use a tiny fraction of the bandwidth of the hardware we're familiar with; but, if things go according to plan, there will be a lot more of these devices.

The devices themselves are based on the IEEE's 802.15 standard, which is intended for what the organization terms "personal area networks." In contrast to WiFi or even Bluetooth, 802.15.4 class devices typically only have a bandwidth of a few hundred Kbps, which puts them decidedly on the low end of the communications scale. That bandwidth, however, is more than sufficient for a wide variety of common uses; the Zigbee standard for wireless smart appliances has been built on top of 802.15.4.

Low bandwidth and low power

For most targeted uses, however, even a few kilobits of data is excessive; a major appliance may only need to check in with a residential smart meter a few times a day, meaning that these devices will spend most of their time in an inactive state. That, combined with some careful chip design, can ensure that 802.15.4 devices use so little power that, for many purposes, they can simply harvest environmental energy sources.

We talked with Cees Links, the CEO of a fabless chip designer called GreenPeak, which is working on bringing 802.15.4 devices to market. According to Links, typical low-power wireless designs have generally put most of the brains in an embedded microcontroller, and simply hooked that to a wireless transceiver. GreenPeak reverses that pattern; the transceiver resides on the same chip as the power management, scheduling, and media access control logic.

This allows the microcontroller to be kept in a low-power sleep mode most of the time. The GreenPeak chip can simply wake it whenever some sort of transmission is needed, or when it receives incoming communications. The chip is also designed to use very little power when in sleep mode.

The net result is a combination of microcontroller and communications hardware that uses only about a third of the power of existing solutions. According to Links, that means that a single 802.15.4 device can run on something like a watch battery for about 15 years.

The end of battery replacement?

As Links noted, 15 years is longer than a lot of typical consumer devices. So, one of the places that his company is pushing to get its chips used is for remote controls. Unlike the infrared technology currently used for remotes, 802.15.4 devices wouldn't need a line of sight to the hardware they're controlling. In fact, the hardware could be stuffed in a closet, as the protocol is good for about 30 meters, even in the face of common sources of interference.

Since the communication can take place in both directions, this even opens up the possibility of using it to send firmware updates to the remote controls.

Clearly, for major appliances that need to hook into a Zigbee network, there's no shortage of power available. But Links sees the low power of the communication protocol as sufficient to allow just about anything to host a wireless node. He claims that a light switch that gets flicked a few times a day can be used to provide enough power so that an 802.15.4 device in the switch could report in on its status and receive feedback from a smart meter—perhaps to dim the lights or shut them off after a certain hour. Given the miniscule power requirements, other sources are also possible, from small solar cells to thermoelectric devices that harvest waste heat.

In this vision, just about everything that handles energy in an entire building will be on short-range networks, to enable remote control, monitor and modulate power use, or both.

It's easy to make a case for remote controls, given the obvious advantages, and the fact that manufacturers are already paying for equivalently priced IR hardware. Even for appliances that don't need remote control, there's a reasonable case to be made, given the cost of the wireless hardware is a tiny fraction of the total cost. But even a chip combination that costs less than $2 (GreenPeak's expected volume pricing) will make up a major portion of the cost of making a light switch, so it seems likely that there will be limits to where this hardware gets deployed for the immediate future.

In any case, the first 802.15.4 remote control devices are expected to appear on the market sometime next year. If they're as successful as GreenPeak is hoping, it's possible we may have to start worrying about the privacy implications of a pervasive wireless mesh.

I read through the entire article with the word 'security' in my mind. It wasn't until the very last sentence that this merits an off-hand remark. I simply can't imagine a future with so many radio signals bouncing around and none of the vulnerabilities remain unexploited.

Maybe at some point, I can use my netbook/smartphone as a universal remote?

But, yeah. Security-wise, 30m seems a bit much. Maybe dial that down to 5m with some way to chain devices. Could better tune the shape of the signal area to where it's actually used. I'll leave the geeks to the technical flaws in that proposal.

Seems pretty good. Pity, I'll probably be too old when they (or someone) will finally figure out how to make a remote control like an iPhone and then all the audio/visual/climate control companies from around the world make apps to load into the one remote so you can just flick-n-pick in the palm of your hand... and call out for it if you loose it.

Originally posted by dlux:I read through the entire article with the word 'security' in my mind. It wasn't until the very last sentence that this merits an off-hand remark. I simply can't imagine a future with so many radio signals bouncing around and none of the vulnerabilities remain unexploited.

I don't understand your concern. To take another example, my current house is vulnerable to rocks thrown through the windows, but people just don't do that. It's possible that these wireless signals might be used to pull some practical jokes, but generally speaking, people don't spy on their neighbors' wireless signals. It just isn't done.

Article:As Links noted, 15 years is longer than a lot of typical consumer devices.

Is it? I think its been some time since I measured the length of my television in units of years. In fact, I don't think my tape measure has years units. Is there a conversion factor to inches or meters? Does it involve the speed of light?

Originally posted by Player_16:Seems pretty good. Pity, I'll probably be too old when they (or someone) will finally figure out how to make a remote control like an iPhone and then all the audio/visual/climate control companies from around the world make apps to load into the one remote so you can just flick-n-pick in the palm of your hand... and call out for it if you loose it.

Originally posted by sep332:I don't understand your concern. To take another example, my current house is vulnerable to rocks thrown through the windows, but people just don't do that. It's possible that these wireless signals might be used to pull some practical jokes, but generally speaking, people don't spy on their neighbors' wireless signals. It just isn't done.

Consider living in a dense urban environment then. I can see no less than seven Wifi networks (two completely open) on any give day. It's not that I don't trust my immediate neighbors, but one of these days they may have someone staying over or house-sitting with less scruples. Granted, simple device control networks don't reveal credit card numbers (they better not!) but who's to say that they won't carry other information in the future that could be triangulated in some nefarious manner, or used by a potential burglar to plan a hit.

Control4 already uses Zigbee and ZigbeePro with over 1 million devices out in the field. I've probably got 60-70 zigbee units in a single mesh in my own home in everything from remote controls, lighting, HVAC, etc.

The new ZigbeePro stack requires encryption to participate in the mesh, so security is already part of the standard and in place.

The new Remote Control standard (RF4CE) is a subset version of Zigbee that will replace IR for RF in consumer electronics.

Originally posted by Player_16:Seems pretty good. Pity, I'll probably be too old when they (or someone) will finally figure out how to make a remote control like an iPhone and then all the audio/visual/climate control companies from around the world make apps to load into the one remote so you can just flick-n-pick in the palm of your hand... and call out for it if you loose it.

Originally posted by sep332:I don't understand your concern. To take another example, my current house is vulnerable to rocks thrown through the windows, but people just don't do that. It's possible that these wireless signals might be used to pull some practical jokes, but generally speaking, people don't spy on their neighbors' wireless signals. It just isn't done.

It isn't done because there either isn't a reason or the technology isn't readily available.

In my younger days, cell phones and cordless phones were analog and listening in was just a $200 scanner away. Lots of people listened in on phone conversations, they just didn't go out blabbing about it very regularly.

On a similar note, how many people access open, unsecured wifi connections and then tell the owner about it? It's really quite difficult to measure exactly who is snooping on those signals, but it is a pretty common occurrence, even if people on either end don't really understand that it's happening or why.

The article shows some lack of imagination. Zigbee devices in a common light switch? No, go one step further: place a small solar cell in the switch and give it a small battery (for night time). The actual switching hardware could be a relay or FET in the light fitting. This:- reduces initial building costs (why drill holes in drywall or brick and run cable when you can just slap on double-sided tape?)- allows you to any number of light "switches" in any number of locations.- means that all your lights can be controlled from a central location.

How about attaching motion sensors to the network or integrating the lighting with the security system? Instead of one or two lights outside, your whole house could light up in an emergency.

I've been thinking about integrating Zigbee devices into my house recently, but while renting an apartment, opportunities are limited.

That's BIG! Not a bad idea but that's BIG!... like umm... fondling big (wink). That'll suck batteries dry in a week. They'll need to use a standard B&W LCD screen like the Kindle to keep it from sucking. Thanx.

That's not bad either; even better. Pity about the set up but a good size to hold in my hand(s). Have to admit, companies luv twinkly lights and fancy graphics (StarTrac & Apple) but it may be a given. If companies can only dumb things down a bit and realise that big-glowing screens require loads of energy (and the laziness of people using one hand), then maybe that 15 year battery span can be achieved.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...NvQc&feature=related

This kind of reminds me of the pervasive mesh networking that forms the basis of the future Internet depicted in Vernor Vinge's Rainbows End. The routers are about the size of a marble, and they can be part of other things such as little insectoid robot critters.

Who knows, maybe the "Rainbows End" of mesh networking (or the mesh networking of Rainbows End) isn't that far away after all.

Control4 already uses Zigbee and ZigbeePro with over 1 million devices out in the field. I've probably got 60-70 zigbee units in a single mesh in my own home in everything from remote controls, lighting, HVAC, etc.

The new ZigbeePro stack requires encryption to participate in the mesh, so security is already part of the standard and in place.

The new Remote Control standard (RF4CE) is a subset version of Zigbee that will replace IR for RF in consumer electronics.

I found your comment more informative than the article. Why wasn't the article writer able to drum up this info?

Control4 light switches also cost about $130 apiece and I regularly sell ones that are $360. These are competing with standard $2 switches, and only have to communicate with a single manufacturer, not be interoperable. Expecting everyone to increase the cost of lighting fifty or a hundred times (or more) just isn't realistic. Same for TV remotes. Power costs aren't the main concern here.

That's BIG! Not a bad idea but that's BIG!... like umm... fondling big (wink). That'll suck batteries dry in a week. They'll need to use a standard B&W LCD screen like the Kindle to keep it from sucking. Thanx.

iirc, it uses a rechargable li-ion battery, same stuff as mobile phones. so when not in use, leave it to charge.

Originally posted by Tokyo Turtle:The article shows some lack of imagination. Zigbee devices in a common light switch? No, go one step further: place a small solar cell in the switch and give it a small battery (for night time). The actual switching hardware could be a relay or FET in the light fitting. This:- reduces initial building costs (why drill holes in drywall or brick and run cable when you can just slap on double-sided tape?)- allows you to any number of light "switches" in any number of locations.- means that all your lights can be controlled from a central location.

You know, my mom works in a lighting store which makes an absolute killing off remote controls for lights and fans (for precisely that reason: someone wants to put in a new light or fan but doesn't want to snake a wire down an inside wall to get to a switch).

$2 for the guts of such a beast would be a killer deal. They sell for $50 and up.

I would love it if a standard could be found that would eliminate everything but the power cord coming out of my computer and monitor. The back of my computer is a rats nest. I even read in places that there is even a wireless power standard, although it only supports 60watts